Retrospective Cohort Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 14, 2022; 28(42): 6045-6055
Published online Nov 14, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i42.6045
Figure 1
Figure 1 Comparison of different liver reserve function assessment methods by receiver operator characteristic curves in the training cohort. A: mLPaM is indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min (ICGR15) ≥ 10%; B: sLPaM is ICGR15 ≥ 20%. ROC: Receiver operator characteristic; MELD: Model for end-stage liver disease; ALBI: Albumin-bilirubin grade; PTAR: Prothrombin time international normalized ratio to albumin ratio; LSM: Liver stiffness measurement; mLPaM: Mildly impaired liver reserve function model; sLPaM: Severely impaired liver reserve function model.
Figure 2
Figure 2 Comparison of different liver reserve function assessment methods by area under the curves in the validation cohort. A: mLPaM is indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min (ICGR15) ≥ 10%; B: sLPaM is ICGR15 ≥ 20%. ROC: Receiver operator characteristic; MELD: Model for end-stage liver disease; ALBI: Albumin-bilirubin grade; PTAR: Prothrombin time international normalized ratio to albumin ratio; LSM: Liver stiffness measurement; mLPaM: Mildly impaired liver reserve function model; sLPaM: Severely impaired liver reserve function model.